Board Meeting

[Guest Helen Nicely]

Robert's newest edition is the governing authority adopted.

At a goverment board meeting, the agenda allows residents to stand up and speak for a short time, assumed to be items of concern to them.

Is the chair permitted, according to Robert's, to allow residents to personally attack individual members of the board? The chair seems to be under the impression that residents can make any kind of public personal attacks on the chairperson's political board enemies during a board meeting, including slander, and that the chair is not to stop the resident as the resident has "freedom of speech" according to the US Constitution.

Thoughts according to Roberts?

[hmtcastle]

Is the chair permitted, according to Robert's, to allow residents to personally attack individual members of the board? The chair seems to be under the impression that residents can make any kind of public personal attacks on the chairperson's political board enemies during a board meeting, including slander, and that the chair is not to stop the resident as the resident has "freedom of speech" according to the US Constitution.

Well, the U.S. Constitution clearly supersedes RONR, though there are laws against slander and libel. You might want to consult an attorney.

[Guest Helen Nicely]

Well, the U.S. Constitution clearly supersedes RONR, though there are laws against slander and libel. You might want to consult an attorney.

[Guest Helen Nicely]

I thought I just posted but it does not seem to show up. Pardon, please if this shows up twice.

I added the US Constitution with tongue in cheek.

If everyone was allowed to say whatever they wanted under the pretense of freedom of speech, then common sense says Robert's would never apply. So there would be no point in adopting Robert's as the parliamentary authority, would there.

[hmtcastle]

If everyone was allowed to say whatever they wanted under the pretense of freedom of speech, then common sense says Robert's would never apply. So there would be no point in adopting Robert's as the parliamentary authority, would there.

The Constitution protects us from governmental restrictions on the right to speak and yours is a governmental body. The situation would be significantly different in a private organization.

[David A Foulkes]

Robert's newest edition is the governing authority adopted.

At a goverment board meeting, the agenda allows residents to stand up and speak for a short time, assumed to be items of concern to them.

Is the chair permitted, according to Robert's, to allow residents to personally attack individual members of the board? The chair seems to be under the impression that residents can make any kind of public personal attacks on the chairperson's political board enemies during a board meeting, including slander, and that the chair is not to stop the resident as the resident has "freedom of speech" according to the US Constitution.

Thoughts according to Roberts?

I think it's fair to say this sort of behavior should not be tolerated, and while I can't quote chapter and verse today, RONR does empower the assembly (Board, membership, whoever is meeting) to "control the hall." (Citations may follow by other posters). Whether there are any other guidelines, including and up to the US Constitution (municipal, state, chapter, etc), that might play into your situation, I'll offer that your chair should reconsider the position you have noted here.

You mention "government board meeting" - which government is represented?

[Rev Ed]

Slander, like libel for that matter, would be an issue for the courts. RONR does allow the group to control (i.e. stop) a member from making comments that are off-topic or inappropriate. If a statement is slanderous is not a matter for RONR, but for the courts to decide.

[Rob Elsman]

Robert's newest edition is the governing authority adopted.

At a goverment board meeting, the agenda allows residents to stand up and speak for a short time, assumed to be items of concern to them.

Is the chair permitted, according to Robert's, to allow residents to personally attack individual members of the board? The chair seems to be under the impression that residents can make any kind of public personal attacks on the chairperson's political board enemies during a board meeting, including slander, and that the chair is not to stop the resident as the resident has "freedom of speech" according to the US Constitution.

Thoughts according to Roberts?

I think the kernel of your question has more to do with constitutional law than anything in RONR; nevertheless, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, it is clear that non-members are obligated to observe the rules adopted by the assembly in the same way as members, so dealing in personalities during a comment period or during debate would be a breach of decorum for which the chair should be diligent to intervene and correct. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 379ff, 625, 626.